Article 50 won't be triggered this year under Gove

[tomtomagain]

No, negotiations take a long time because they involve a very big fook off list of things to agree on - there are lobbyists on both sides fighting with each other.

Of course. But surely you would reach an interim agreement very quickly to prevent the loss of trade.

The agreements with the EU might take time because of the political positioning, but other, non-EU countries would presumably be more than happy to get quickly into an agreement, if for no more reason than being able to take market share from their EU competitors.

[AtW]

The basic agreements will be very similar in most aspects. A bit of fine tuning and individual tweaking is perfectly feasible for our "nation of shopkeepers".

Fine tuning? Exact list might be the same but each line will need to be argued separately, that's the whole reason why big trade agreements are done with blocks - makes it a lot easier than bilateral.

[MrMarkyMark]

He would get more than Tony Blair.

For that maybe, but I bet he can't beat Bliars fee structure.
Blairs worth at least 60 million+, trust involved, of course

Tony Blair used secret fund to manage multi-million pound fortune

[AtW]

Of course. But surely you would reach an interim agreement very quickly to prevent the loss of trade.

You are making a very BIG assumption that the other parties would need trade deal as much as UK does.

It is a very wrong assumption - UK will be desperate for agreements and the other parties would not be in a rush because they'd be able to get much better deal for themselves, protect their market from cheap (due to low GBP) UK products: they would see it as priority in my view because they would know pretty well that low sterling will be preventing them from exporting as much, essentially UK is protecting its internal market with weak currency.

[shaunbhoy]

Fine tuning? Exact list might be the same but each line will need to be argued separately, that's the whole reason why big trade agreements are done with blocks - makes it a lot easier than bilateral.

The only things that will need to be "argued" are where a dispute arises. Mutually acceptable agreements have been around for centuries. And if it is "easier" to do trade agreements as a block, why does the EU, after more than 40 years, still not have such deals in place with the USA, India, or China?

[tomtomagain]

We've copied all the necessary documents off the EU Shared-Drive

EU:\\Documents\TradeAgreements

Farage has already run a Search and Replace on them ( 18,043 replacements of "EU" with "UK"! ). He did struggle to replace the European flag with the Union Jack, but Boris is pretty good with Word so he sorted it out.

They are going round our non-EU trading partners asking them to sign them.

The T's & C's are the same. So it's a no-brainer.

It will all be over by Christmas. Simples.

[tomtomagain]

And if it is "easier" to do trade agreements as a block, why does the EU, after more than 40 years, still not have such deals in place with the USA, India, or China?

Is it all the fault of the protectionist-French?

[shaunbhoy]

Is it all the fault of the protectionist-French?

You tell me.

[AtW]

The only things that will need to be "argued" are where a dispute arises. Mutually acceptable agreements have been around for centuries. And if it is "easier" to do trade agreements as a block, why does the EU, after more than 40 years, still not have such deals in place with the USA, India, or China?

Have you seen documents with customs duties on different ranges of products? Those things ain't simple - every line will have some people fighting for or against because in trade agreement it would favour one side or the other.

Now counter parties would know UK is desperate and that UK currency will be low for a long time, why would they allow UK to easily export into their markets? I am sure they'd be happy to allow UK to buy anything from them though, that bit would be easy!

[OwlHoot]

Of course. But surely you would reach an interim agreement very quickly to prevent the loss of trade. ...

indeed, especially as there is an existing baseline WTO agreement.

What does a fancy new agreement add that isn't in the basic WTO agreement, in exchange of goods at least even if not in services?

Seems to me all this trade agreement talk was largely a ruse to try and scare would-be Brexiters.